24 February 2018

Pontifical logic

It is well known that Blessed Paul VI discerned the smoke of Satan in the post-Conciliar Church. Does this give us carte blanche to condemn the Council?

The Bergoglian Church is riven with strife and hate-filled enmity; depending on your viewpoint, there are evil women and men obstructing the Spirit-filled initiatives of the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of S Peter; or alternatively, the corruptions of the World, the Flesh, and of Satan have infiltrated and perverted the very highest level of the Church Militant.

By their fruits ...

Whichever of those two options fits your personal view, a sombre jugement would seem to hang over this pontificate.

Perhaps this dominical maxim should not be brought into the arena of 'Church Politics' ... by either side.

8 comments:

The manner in which the current HF exercises his authority ("I'm the Pope, I don't have to give reasons") is a major obstacle to unity, which is the main point of the Petrine ministry. I may be wrong, but may the problem be the Jesuit mindset? St Ignatius' teaching on obedience to the Pope (for his Society) was more or less, "When the Pope says 'Jump', all you may ask is, 'How high?'"

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. — Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863

It is said that Milano's Abp Montini helped write the opening speech of Vatican Two which bear-hugged this error with grave intensity and it is not uninteresting to observe that Our Pope and Our Cross considers his own self a devotee of Montini (Soon to be Canonised, of course) and yet he, like all modern Popes, seem uninterested in the teachings of Saint Paul - 2 Cor 10:4,5,6 -

2 Cor 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled.

The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide is especially useful here...

Pope Blessed Paul VI told the Roman Clergy that he could apply discipline if he desired but he preferred to be loved and his devotee famously said, Who am I to judge?

Those who have the authority and the duty to punish the disobedient and the heretics refuse to do so (because mercy?) and so the sheep and the lambs are set upon by these wolves who tear them into spiritual shreds and devour their souls.

I suppose, if one possessed an advanced degree in botanical theology, or studied 'Laudato si' closely then one ought to be able to distinguish both the fruit and nut trees which have blossomed fulsomely since 1960. The time now is for the harvesting of those crops.

Those of you who read, and perhaps commented on, Fr Hunwicke's recent blog post, Sedevacantism will recall the question that he posed:

"Suppose a pope were, additionally, to require of every Catholic explicit assent ex animo to heresy as a necessary condition for Communion with himself, what would be the situation?"

I commented, well, repeatedly, without coming to any conclusion regarding that challenge/question.

Just yesterday Dr. John Lamont published an essay The Meaning of Amoris Laetitia According to Pope Francis. Dr. Lamont is clearly of at least a very similar mind as that of Fr Hunwicke. On the one hand, Dr. Lamont does answer Fr Hunwicke's question, in this sense: he maintains that Fr Hunwicke's question is no longer hypothetical--and in fact we're all aware of eminent philosophers and theologians who have lost their positions precisely because they have opposed precisely that interpretation of AL that has been endorsed as the "only interpretation possible" and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. On the other hand, it's apparent that Dr. Lamont is not a sedevacantist, although he does sketch out the actions that should be taken to address this current crisis--but which, lamentably, have not been taken. And so Fr Hunwicke's challenge remains. However, I strongly urge one and all to read Dr. Lamont's essay because of its incisive reasoning.

For my own part, while I acknowledge that the sedevacantist position has a certain logical power that is undeniable, it also in my opinion raises equally powerful difficulties that I have never seen addressed. So I offer no solution, a bit in the fashion of Dr. Arabin. However, I have commented on Dr. Lamont's essay, attempting to highlight what I regard as the most important aspects of his argument: John Lamont: The Bergoglian Assault on the Faith. The title of my blog is drawn from Dr. Lamont's own words, so I trust this is no misrepresentation of his views.

It is a matter of dispute as to exactly what Paul was referring when he spoke of the "smoke of Satan" in the Church. Some say he was referring to the smoke from the fire he himself had helped start and was continuing to fan, others say he was referring to opposition to his post-Conciliar "reforms." His words seem somewhat ambiguous. As has become fashionable.

The Gospel for the 2nd Sunday of Lent recounting the Transfiguration provides a prime opportunity to note of the disbeliefs of the "favorite theologian” of Pope Francis - Cardinal Kasper (“this is theology on its knees”).

Bishops like Cdl. Cupich are having Kasper's theology (Jesus the Christ, first published 1974) used in our seminaries. I am sure Kasper’s book below is also in use in “Catholic” colleges throughout the world since 1974. He re-issued it in 2011.

Here is Cardinal Kasper's testimony about the Transfiguration: “A number of miracle stories turn out in the light of form criticism to be projections of the experiences of Easter back into the earthly life of Jesus, or anticipatory representations of the exalted Christ. Among these epiphany stories we should probably include the stilling of the storm, the transfiguration, Jesus’ walking on the lake, the feeding of the four (or five) thousand and the miraculous draught of fishes. …“The result of all this is that we must describe many of the gospel miracle stories as legendary…. ” (Jesus the Christ, Kasper, 1974, p. 90-91)Source: http://www.catholichousehold.com/gospel-according-to-cardinal-kasper/

Men and women in Germany (etc etc) don’t bother going to Mass, because they have been listening to Kasper for 50 years, and they “get the message” that most German Bishops (etc etc), like Kasper, don’t preach the Catholic faith.

That’s the “new Church of 2013” - denying the Evangelists to our children on Monday, and then theater for the parents about the “new evangelization” on Tuesday.

Absolutely on target, Chris B.! We are dealing with an evident plan to transform (or destroy?) the Catholic Faith through duplicity and bullying. And, still, some would have us believe that all is well and that we exaggerate. One must wonder if they have taken seriously the exigencies of the faculty of reason with which God has gifted them or whether they have a self-inflicted myopia, delusionally conceived as fidelity and obedience. In any case, let us be ware of lukewarmness, for Our Lord did not have politically correct words for those afflicted with that condition.

Fr John Hunwicke

was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.